16 February 2010

Consistent with Being in a Deep Fog

Declining fog cover on California's coast could leave the state's famous redwoods high and dry, a new study says.

Among the tallest and longest-lived trees on Earth, redwoods depend on summertime's moisture-rich fog to replenish their water reserves.

But climate change may be reducing this crucial fog cover. Though still poorly understood, climate change may be contributing to a decline in a high-pressure climatic system that usually "pinches itself" against the coast, creating fog, said study co-author James Johnstone, an environmental scientist at the University of California, Berkeley.

Last summer the San Francisco Chronicle carried a story about research on fog and climate with a different conclusion:

The Bay Area just had its foggiest May in 50 years. And thanks to global warming, it's about to get even foggier.

That's the conclusion of several state researchers, whose soon-to-be-published study predicts that even with average temperatures on the rise, the mercury won't be soaring everywhere.

"There'll be winners and losers," says Robert Bornstein, a meteorology professor at San Jose State University. "Global warming is warming the interior part of California, but it leads to a reverse reaction of more fog along the coast."

The study, which will appear in the journal Climate, is the latest to argue that colder summers are indeed in store for parts of the Bay Area.

More fog is consistent with predictions of climate change. Less fog is consistent with predictions of climate change. I wonder if the same amount of fog is also "consistent with" such predictions? I bet so.

As someone who is from the Bay Area, I can say that 13 years ago the reduction in fog was noticeable, but I put it down to a change in the mix of industries in SF--most of the manufacturing had moved out, replaced by tourism. After moving back a year ago, the fog does seem more frequent and thicker. I must also say that 13 years ago the Redwoods in Muir Woods look vibrant, healthy and in better shape than I was. They still do.

The most important question for these apparently brilliant minds is: how do they definitively differentiate (using empirical evidence from observation) whether the changes are natural, or human influenced?

Without such an answer it's all just pointing out the incredibly obvious, ie that climate change causes (gasp, shock, horror!) changes in various aspects of the environment.

"But climate change may be reducing this crucial fog cover. Though still poorly understood, climate change may be contributing to a decline in a high-pressure climatic system that usually "pinches itself" against the coast, creating fog, said study co-author James Johnstone, an environmental scientist at the University of California, Berkeley."

Notice the word "may" is used twice, here. You can replace these words with "may not," based on the evidence provided. Because of that, the "conclusions" mean nothing at all. I find this the most pervasive problem in climate science.

The one report looks at temperature and fog for the last century; the other at temperature for the last 40 years and makes a prediction about future fog.

The one report finds a decrease in the temperature differential between inland and coastal areas since the beginning of the 20th century and a decrease in fog; the other finds an increase in the differential in certain areas since 1970 and predicts an increase in fog.

Could there be some interesting information in the difference and not just a conclusion that the scientists involved are "in a deep fog"?

Here's what you folks don't seem to understand. In the Bay Area, they have what we physicists all "Quantum Fog." When you are not observing it, it is in an entangled state - both fog and mist and/or neither. Any attempts to describe it result in what we philosophers call "Quantum Truths". In other words, neither story is true nor is either false until read - preferably in the woods, surrounded by Redwood trees, when no one else knows you're reading. These properties follow directly from the Hedge Theorem, as all of us mathematicians are well aware.

"Notice the word "may" is used twice, here. You can replace these words with "may not," based on the evidence provided. Because of that, the "conclusions" mean nothing at all. I find this the most pervasive problem in climate science."

Yes, I'd go even farther. It's not a "problem in climate science," because it's not science at all. It's not falsifiable, so it's not science.

Luke Lea said: "...Can anybody come up with a better one? We need it."You didn't like post 20? If you are looking for a rational response to absurdity, you could do little better than to ask an alcoholic in the throws of delirium tremens. Some of the better arguments to "non-inconsistency" may surely be found in one of the volumes of Lewis Carroll.Tea, anyone?